Does this mean that we are abandoning the idea to have -g determine *how* out put is printed (i.e., shell-script style) and use other flags to determine *what* is printed?
Michael ____________________ C. Michael Barton Director, Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity Professor of Anthropology, School of Human Evolution & Social Change Arizona State University voice: 480-965-6262 (SHESC), 480-727-9746 (CSDC) fax: 480-965-7671 (SHESC), 480-727-0709 (CSDC) www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton, http://csdc.asu.edu On Nov 27, 2011, at 10:00 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 17:50:39 -0800 (PST) > From: Hamish <[email protected]> > Subject: [GRASS-dev] Re: r49205 - in grass/trunk: lib/python > raster/r.info > To: Martin Landa <[email protected]> > Cc: GRASS developers list <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Martin: >> current situation is >> >> r.info >> ? -g???Print raster array information only > > [in shell script style!] > >> ? -e???Print extended metadata information only > > [also in shell script style!] > >> v.info >> ? -g???Print region info in shell script style >> ? -e???Print extended metadata info in shell >> script style >> >> which forces to open discussion again. > > ..did it ever close? :-) > > what is new since last we discussed this is r.info's > many shell script style flags are now grouped* so > it is not as messy in the module GUI. IMHO it is a > good compromise, and consistent design among modules > is still respected. > > [*] https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/changeset/49293 > > so -rgstmpud becomes -ger instead of just one huge > -g. Non shell-script safe foo=(bar) things are kept > in -e, so you can still `eval` -g. Instances of > '(none)' have been changed to '"none"' to become > more shell friendly as well. > > >> I would still incline to use `-g` for shell >> script output as used in others modules. >> I have counted more than 45 modules in trunk >> which use `-g` for shell script style output. > > huh? I don't understand what you are talking about. > > ** r.info -g, v.info -g, and g.region -g DO all > print eval-safe shell script style ** same as ever, > still shell script style, still similar to -g in > other modules... > > Keep in mind that r.info and v.info's default > "pretty" output mode is a tractor-fed dot-matrix > printer style report, not a "foo: bar" listing. [and > fwiw there is no point for "min: 1.2345" instead of > "min=1.2345" style, since min= is perfectly human > friendly to read] > > > What they are not is a full --parsable-debug-data- > dump which may save a gui programmer 5 keystrokes > in a python library which is revisited once every > 3 years, but make things totally annoying for a > command line user who uses that same flag 20 times > a day, not to mention making them eval-unsafe. > > If you need a --dump-everything-parsable flag some- > where then fine add that (better yet just make a > wrapper --script instead of messing up the code), > but don't remove the fine grained eval-safe shell > script style options in the process. These things > do not have to be mutually exclusive. But -g does > have to stay shell-script (ie eval) safe. > > >> I don't see any reason why `r.info` or `v.info` >> should be exceptions. > > ?! they aren't !? > > > If you want to see an exception, look at d.what.rast > -t "terse" output flag. > > > Hamish _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
